...
news...
opinion...
bush report...
gorewatch...
comedy...
site map...
us...
...
news...
opinion...
bush report...
gorewatch...
comedy...
site map...
us...
Have The Dems Lurched To The Right? Some critics claim the Democratic Party lurched far to the right over the past 30 years. One consumer activist even claimed they "sold their soul to the devil" in order to win elections. Because of that, it's claimed, the Democrats have no ability to do anything. I say these critics are wrong across the board. And I can prove it. First, the ability to achieve progress depends on winning elections. I find any analysis that claims winning is bad and losing is good suspect at best. Second, Al Gore was the most progressive candidate with a chance to win since Hubert Humphrey in 1968. More progressive than Carter or Clinton, and more progressive than Dukakis on many issues. That refutes the "Democrats are GOP Lite" claim, but there's more. Have the Democrats lurched to the right over the past 30 years? In 1971, many Democrats still supported the Vietnam War. This was pre-Watergate, and Southern right wingers like Phil Gramm were still Democrats. Since the early 1970s, the GOP lurched to the right, and most right wing Dixiecrats joined them. But did Democrats follow? Since 1971, the top of the Democratic ticket has been liberal in a few cycles, and moderate in the others. The Democratic ticket of 1972 lurched far to left with McGovern, and lost nearly every state. Mondale was not as liberal, but also floundered. McGovern (72) and Mondale (84) were very liberal candidates. They combined to carry DC (twice), Mass., and Minnesota. The two worst electoral landslides in history. Carter (76-80), Dukakis (88), Clinton (92-96) and Gore (00) were all more or less moderate. During the years in question, the Democrats have won or run well when they nominated moderates for President (except 1980), but lost badly with liberals. The 1972 ticket was the most liberal, and Gore was less liberal. I guess you might say that means the Democratic Party lurched far to the right since 1971. But I believe that's an inaccurate yard stick. The top of the ticket is not the whole party or the whole picture, so it's not accurate to judge Democrats by that, and this "trend" is unclear at best. Judging the whole party shows a much clearer picture. In Congress and elsewhere, the Democratic party actually drifted left as conservatives left the Democrats and joined the GOP. The net effect left the two main parties more different from each other than any time in decades. I know that's not the conventional wisdom, but there it is. The two main parties are more different from each other today than any time in decades. As for the DLC, they're not perfect. I disagree with their claim that Al Gore ran as too much of a populist in 2000. But they're just a bunch of people who voice their opinions and make their case same as anyone else. People can agree with them or not, but I don't appreciate all the screaming and hysteria about them. Their power in the Democratic Party is overrated, in my opinion. That said, the DLC is very positive in some regards. They helped the left/center coalition beat the far right in three consecutive Presidential elections. This after three straight right wing wins. To me that's a good thing. I don't agree with all their views, but they don't deserve blame for "selling their souls" or the other overcharged rhetoric I've read. So why all the rabid anti-DLC fervor? I've learned that Republican plants rile up Naderites against the DLC. One GOP agent laughed about how easy it is to tip Greens "over the edge." Go to the DLC site, look at their actual positions. Some are sensible, and some are not, but please ignore the garbage GOP plants.  Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex.
|
sign up for 20-50 daily bush news headlines |